1

Linnaeus University

Faculty of Health and life sciences

Department of Psychology

Master Thesis 5PS22E, 30 ECTS

Spring 2019

Prototype Generalization and its effect on the decision-making process

Author: Iman Fatima

Supervisor: Rikard Liljenfors

Examiner: Andrejs Ozolins

2

ABSTRACT

Background: The aim of the paper was to assess the impact of the prototype (age and alcohol

intoxication) generalization on decision making process in courtroom scenarios in Pakistan.

Additionally, an objective was to assess if lawyer’s education can minimize the effects of prototype

generalization in given case scenarios in the given experiments or not. This was done by collecting

a sample of participants from other professions.

Subjects and methods: A total number of 565 participants (Lawyers = 281; People from other

professions = 283) were included in the study. Cross sectional research design was employed, and

participants rated their opinion on a Nine-point Likert scale questionnaire. One strongly disagrees

to Nine strongly agrees on two experimental studies. Each experimental study had a 2 × 2 factorial

design. Factorial analysis and T-test was employed using SPSS to derive the results.

Results: No prototype generalization effect were seen in the sample of lawyers for age and

Alcohol intoxication experiments. Generalized and controlled arguments of the defense attorney

were rated similarly thus showing no effect on the decision-making process of the lawyers.

Participants agreed on case scenario of four years old witness with defense attorney statements as

compared to twelve years case scenarios statements of defense attorney. No difference was seen

for the rating on Alcohol consumption case scenarios in the lawyer’s sample. Study II highlighted

the differences between lawyers and people from other professions. People from other profession

agreed more with the defense attorney statements as compared to lawyers. This highlighted the

fact that since the experiments were based on court situations, law education of lawyers in

Pakistan’s law might have caused the difference in the rating.

Conclusion: No prototype effect can be found due to the law of Pakistan which clearly states the

conditions for the witness to be reliable in which these two conditions do not matter. Secondly

prototype generalization effect have been seen varying among cultures, so study result highlight

that factor as well. Furthermore, the present study provided grounds for future research in Pakistan

on effects of prototype generalization on decision making process.

3

INTRODUCTION

Judgement and decision-making processes are the core of all interactions in work

environment productivity. The concept of a certain thing develops through general prototype (Fox,

2011). This prototype generalization facilitates the judgement and decision-making process of an

individual in any working organization. Prototype generalization affects the outcome and in some

situations the life of individuals.

The goal of the project was to assess the role of prototype generalization in the decision

and judgement making process. Two studies have been conducted. Study one analyzed how

generalization can affect the judgement of a person in witness testimony. In study II the results are

compared with other professional to analyze the difference of prototype generalization between

lawyers and people from other fields to see if education of the law can have an effect on prototype

generalization rating in given case scenarios.

Theoretical background

According to Highhouse (2008) greatest achievement of industrial and organizational

psychologists are development of tools to aid the decision-making process of an individual.

Judgement and decision-making process is one of the foundations of any organization to develop

and prosper (Ceschi, Demerouti, Sartori, and Weller, 2017). Psychologist have assessed the role

of decision-making styles as a mediator in factors such as demand of a certain job, performance at

workplace, work engagement and utilization of resources (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner and

Schaufeli, 2001). In line of this finding Gorden et al. (2015) stated that analytical decision-making

works as a mediator in regulating the job demands at workplace. Moreover, since job demand

positively influence performance of the worker it is necessary to keep in mind what type of

decision-making style (analytical or strategic) will best suit the need of an organization (Ceschi,

Demerouti, Sartori, and Weller, 2017).

Decision making has been researched in terms of its applicability and theoretical

importance in different field whether it is organizational or academic. For example, behavioral

neuroscientists are assessing how sensory stimuli can affect the decision making process where as

cognitive psychologist have postulated the notion that decision making is done with previous

4

experience; it is based on the individual belief system, and how much they value a certain thing

in a given situation. Moreover, cognitive psychologist claims that even simple process such as

understanding the perception of a certain thing or recognizing it involves the decision-making

process (Ceschi, Demerouti, Sartori, and Weller, 2017).

Different techniques are employed by people to make decisions in any given working

condition. Decision making process has been defined by various psychologist for example, making

a list of benefits or losses; do a comparison between the option; select the one with the maximum

outcome or make decision-based on their confidence (Revlin, 2013). According to Harree (1979)

a person can be rational, or work on his gut feeling, or be dependent on the knowledge to decide

in various situations. Furthermore, a competent decision maker will reply on multiple cognitive

skills to improve work performance in an organization (Bandura and Jourden, 1991). This

competency can be developed through comparison of different choices and mastering them while

simultaneously looking out for limitations of one cognitive ability in terms of heuristics and biases

and personal inclinations thus leading to the hinderance of required decision in the given situation

(Bymes, 2013). In conclusion, decision making is an import factor of any organiztaion let it be

educational setup or any industrial setup.

Klien (1998) purports that decision making is affected by the experience of a similar

situation. Knowledge gained from the experience of similar situations facilitates the development

of the concepts. Concept development facilitate the decision-making process by decreasing the

time span to make the decision about a certain aspect (Rosch, 1978).

The process of analyzing alike situations is done through these concepts. Concepts can be

universal and are developed by category system. Concepts tend to enhance the ability of a person

to give categories to things around them in order to make more sense of them. Two principles work

for the development of the category system (Rosch, 1978).

First principle, cognitive economy focuses on the function of offering maximum

information while employing minimum cognitive resources. Second principle, namely perceived

world structure focuses on the structure of the provided information. Since the world around us is

in a structured form thus this process helps the individual to channelize maximum cognitive

information as possible in minimum time. The cognitive economy is based on the commonsense

notion, that a person wishes to gain maximum information from his surrounding in the shortest

5

possible manner. It helps understand the similarities between the given stimuli and others thus

forming a category. Disadvantage of this process could be the elimination of differences which at

some point could be crucial for the decision-making process. The perceived world structure

function of the category system refers to correlation of the material objects in the real world

(Rosch, 1978). For example, a feather will co-occur with wings as compared to fur. Similarly,

attributes associated with children will be perceived with the age of a person appropriate to be

called a child than an adult. This attribution depends on the functional need of the individual who

interacts with the social and physical surrounding. Since the category system exists in the culture

at any given time this facilitates the person to apply attributions to different variables. To further

elaborate the concept, we can divide the category system into vertical and horizontal parameters.

Vertical parameters talk about the inclusion criteria of a variable in terms of the similarity.

According to the principles of categorization not all levels of vertical categorization is useful or

good. The horizontal refers to the segmentation of a category at the level of inclusiveness of a

category. This system provides an understanding of a prototype or prototypical occurrences. Thus,

highlights the attributes that are more prominent in a given prototype and are different from a

prototype not from the same group or cluster (Rosch, 1978).

Prototype theory is made up of a conceptual framework because it allows a person to assess

things in a perspective of commonality, without essentialism and it does not eliminate the

similarities yet shows differences in the object (Fox, 2011). From a cognitive point of view,

prototype theory can be defined in terms of the proto image of a representative group meaning it

provides a category for the group, for example, a child.

This grading system is done according to the typicality of the features residing in the object

or a person. (“Cognitive approaches”, n.d., para 2). Prototypes are images of the type of person

who engages in the target behavior and is shaped by perceptions of favorability and similarity of

the prototype.

In conclusion, a prototype is that part of a category that depicts maximum features of the

category in consideration. It provides maximum resembles of the attributes of a certain category.

Prototype generalization effects have been seen in studies such as perceiving smoking as a negative

prototype (Gibbons, Gerrard, Lando and McGovern, 1991), understanding prejudice behavior

(Flournoy Prentice‐Dunn, and Klinger 2002), gender perception and attributes associated with

6

certain gender (Fox, 2011), Culture differences in attributions of prototype characteristics of

leaders (Gerstner, and Day, 1994; Popper, and Druyan, 2001) cultural prototypes and dimensions

of honor (Cross et al.(2014), and intoxication and age of the witness (Dalman et al, 2015) etc.

Prototype generalization can be negative or positive. Generalization of these prototypes

affects the decision-making process of an individual. It can lead to a complete change in the choice

of decision thus affecting the lives of people in case of a court judgement.

A study conducted by Dalman et al (2015) conducted two experiments to assess “prototype

effects and persuasiveness of generalization”. In their study, they conducted two experiments on a

sample of 1187 participant. The sample was collected through the online Amazon Mechanical

Turk. Experiment one was assessing the effects of the prototype (age) during the judgement and

decision-making process. For this purpose, a 6 × 2 factorial design was employed. They used 6

age groups such as 4, 9, 12, 14, 17 and 19 years to assess the effects of generalization. A courtroom

scenario was used in the experiment. In it, a murder was committed and there was a witness who

reported the crime scene to the police. Witness age was changed in the six different sets of the

experiment. Two statements of the defense attorney were used for each age group. In one statement

the defense attorney had stated the age, for instance, a 9 years old child is not reliable and in the

other version, he stated that a child is less reliable as a witness. This condition was set to generate

the prototype effect by just stating the child term for the witness instead of the age. Participants

were provided with one of the given arguments of the defense attorney and they had to rate their

opinion whether they agree with the attorney or not on a scale of 1 strongly disagree to 9 strongly

agree. Their study yielded the results that age as a prototype can affect the decision-making process

of the individual. For example, according to their study four years old is less reliable as a witness

as compared to 12 years old.

The second experiment was again a murder case scenario but in it, the witness had

consumed a certain amount of wine. For wine, they set 6 different levels such as one, two, three,

four, six and eight glasses respectively. Again, two versions of the defense attorney were used one

given to each participant of the study. For instance, the defense attorney stated that a witness who

consumed 6 glasses of wine is not a reliable witness on the other hand the generalized version of

the defense attorney argument was that a person who is intoxicated is not a reliable witness. The

result of this experiment was that prototype generalization influences the judgement and decision-

7

making process of the jury during the cases. For instance, according to their results people agree

more with the defense lawyer that the witness in intoxicate and not reliable in the situation where

the witness consumed 6 glasses of wine.

The prototype generalization is a crucial part while making judgements and decisions

regarding different scenarios. There was a research gap in Pakistani organizations regarding this

phenomenon. Since, the ratio of child witness has increased in Pakistan, the assessment of its effect

has become crucial for the work environment as the understanding of the persuasiveness of

generalization can change the decision-making process of an individual, so I replicated the study

of Dalman et al (2015) to assess its effects in Pakistani culture in order to provide a platform of

research in this area there as well as understand the working of this phenomenon in Pakistan’s law

and culture setup. So, the study focuses on the debate, that if a witness belongs to a certain category

(age) then he or she will be assessed in terms of the age (prototype), rather than other features of

such as intelligence, memory, etc. In this case, for instance, considering a child being less reliable

as a witness as compared to an adult. Cases in which generalization is employed the audience tends

to agree with the defense attorney statement compared to others (Toulmin, 1958). For example,

assume a case where a child is a witness and the statement employed by the lawyer is stating that

Y is less reliable as Y is a child. Or consider this, instead of Y in the previous sentence we write 5

years old. A 5-year-old is less reliable as a witness as people know he or she is a child. Now

imagine the same situation and instead of 5 years old I write 9 years old or twelve years old. The

perceived reliability of the witness changes in the mind. Thus, prototype generalization claims that

if the age of the child is increased for instance Y is 9 years old the testimony of the witness will be

more valid (Ross et al. 1990). This happens due to prototype activation which overshadows the

rest of the characteristic of the member of certain category e.g. intelligence level (Lakoff, 1985).

Winters stated that the prototype overshadows the real facts of a certain case. Thus, the judgement

made on that case will be based on the elements of the prototype rather than the facts provided by

the witness (Winter, 1988). Hence, the judge will give verdict keeping in mind the witness to be

a child, so he or she lacks required credibility to provide enough proof to convict someone of a

crime.

According to the general theory if the judgement is done keeping in mind the prototype

rather than the facts of the case then the generalization will make the person agree more to the

8

judgement this is known as the positive prototype effect. Moreover, if the judgement is done the

same as for the prototype as well as for the actual case then there is no effect of generalization on

the decision-making process. But if the judgement is done in more favor of a prototype then it is

called the negative prototype effect (Dalham, et, al. 2015).

To analyze if a positive or negative prototype effect is present in both situations, two

experiments were conducted. The first experiment investigated Q1: Whether the generalization of

a child make him or her less reliable as a witness and Q2: Whether the generalization of the term

intoxicated makes an individual less reliable as a witness. The results of these two experiments,

were compared with another set of participants from different professions with lawyers to see if

education of the law in these case scenarios has minimized the prototype generalization effect.

RATIONALE

Pakistan is a developing country and it needs to update its system in order to be compatible

with other countries in prosperity. The law of any country is the foundation of the country on

which it is based on and working. Improvement in that system will not only provide a platform for

the country to prosper but also will help the individual who is being affected by the decisions taken

by the court in different cases. Analyses of the literature show that prototype generalization

influences the decision-making process. After intense literature review no such study has been

conducted in Pakistani organizations and industries. Pakistan laws clearly state clauses for

witnesses who fall in the category of minor or addicts, still the effect of the generalization has yet

to be seen in the decision-making process. It is important to fill this research gap because prototype

generalization effect in courts during different cases can generate totally different result if this

phenomenon is not understood by the decision makers and the generalization used during the

argument of the plaintiff by the lawyer or the defense attorney. It will assess and facilitate the

credibility of the law organizations decision making process who are practicing in Pakistan.

Additionally, it will also provide platform for future research in this domain to assess other

prototypes that could have effect on the decision-making process of a person.

9

HYPOTHESES.

1. The participant will agree less to child generalization arguments as compared to the

control version of the study. That is child is less reliable witness as compared to the

control statement where the defense attorney uses the specific age (four years old

or twelve years old) is less reliable as a witness.

2. Participants will find four years old child less reliable as witnesses as compared to

twelve years old child. That is, they will agree more with the defense attorney

statement that a four years old child is less reliable as a witness. Whereas for the

case scenario where the witness age is twelve years the participants will disagree

with the defense attorney statement that a twelve years old child is not a reliable

witness.

3. The participants will find the use of the category intoxicated appropriate if the

quantity of alcohol consumed by the witness is high enough, and will find it

inappropriate to categorize the witness as intoxicated if the consumed quantity of

alcohol, he or she thinks doesn’t come under the term intoxication.

4. There will be a significant difference between lawyers and other professionals

rating of the experiment where the term child is applied regardless of the age and

was well as in the control version where the defense attorney mentioned the age

and stated the witness is not reliable.

5. Lawyers and other professionals will vary in their rating of the generalization of

prototype in the alcohol version where the amount of consumed alcohol is

mentioned as well as intoxicated version of the argument where only the defense

attorney claims the person to be intoxicated.

10

METHODOLOGY

Sample

In study one the inclusion criteria for the sample was lawyers practicing in their field. G

power calculator was employed to get the size of the sample. The power analysis suggested sample

of 275 participants with medium effect size. A sample of 282 lawyers (Male= 234; Female= 48)

were included in the study. Male sample minimum age 22 and Maximum 65 (Mean = 34.0) and

female sample minimum age 23 and maximum 45 (Mean age = 31.10).

For study II a total of 283 (Male = 138; female = 145) individual filled the form. Data was

collected from universities such as Kinnaird college (n = 95) Fast University (n = 68), and

University of Central Punjab (n = 120), from different profession such as engineers, psychologist

and journalists. The sample consisted of students as well as workers within the organizations. The

mean age of the sample was 20.06 (Male = 21.39; Female = 20.73).

Sampling strategy

Purposive sampling was used for study one since it targets a class of individuals who are

not representative of that large population but are a subgroup of it. This sampling is used when the

targeted population is difficult to find (Black, 2009). For study II convenience sampling was

employed. It is a non-probability sampling technique in which data is gathered from a population

who is easily available and representative of that specific group (Lavrakas, 2008).

Research Design

Cross sectional research was conducted. A 2× 2 factorial design was employed. Age was

the first factor of the witness in a courtroom case scenario (4 and 12 years old). The second version

was the version of argument made by the defense lawyer (child generalization and control version)

In control version he will mention the age and in generalization he will state a child is less reliable

as a witness. Similarly, 2×2 design was used for the second experiment too. Amount of alcohol

consumed (one glass or four glasses) by the witness was assessed for prototype generalization.

Two versions of defense attorney generalized in which the intoxicated term was used and control

version in which the number of glasses consumed by the witness was mention in a courtroom

situation.

11

Material

Two versions of a case based on a scenario of a courtroom will be used in this experiment.

The two versions will be similar apart from the age of the eyewitness, Sheryaar Abbas. One version

of the case will be provided to the participant. The case read as follows:

Experiment one Case Scenario:

“Waris Baig is standing trial for a murder. According to the prosecutor, Waris, stabbed a

man to death in front of the movie theater in Gulberg, Lahore on July 10, 2011. At the trial the

prosecution calls Sheryar Abbas as a witness. He is X years old and lives across the street from

the movie theatre. He testifies that he saw the murderer from his house and identifies Waris as the

killer” (Dahlman, et.al., 2015).

Scenario X = 4 years old

Scenario X = 12 years old

After reading the case participants were given one of the two versions of the defense

attorney. The versions are as follows:

Child generalized argument: “I would like to draw your attention to one important factor related

to Sheryar Abbas. A child is less reliable as a witness. Sheryar Abbas is therefore less reliable as

a witness.”

Control argument: “I would like to draw your attention to one important factor related to Sheryar

Abbas. Age (X) is less reliable as a witness. Sheryar Abbas is therefore less reliable as a witness.”

Scenario X = 4 years old

Scenario X = 12 years old

The reason for selecting these age groups was because in the Dalman, et.al., study the

results showed that a 4 years old is more clearly perceived as a child and his testimony will

12

therefore be rated as less reliable then a 12 years old child who will be seen reliable as he is old

enough to state the facts.

In the study lawyers (N = 160 got four years old case scenario; N = 122 got twelve years

old case scenario). Moreover, 127 lawyers read the generalized argument and 155 had the control

argument of the experiment.

Experiment Two Case Scenario

“Waris is standing trial for the murder of Raza Ali. According to the prosecutor, Raza Ali

was sitting on the front porch of his house at 3.30 in the afternoon of August 10, 2011 when Waris

arrived in his car, slowed down and fired several shots at Raza Ali through the open window. At

the trial, the prosecution calls Sheharyar Abbas as a witness. Sheharyar saw the murder from across

the street. He testifies that he was walking down the street when he noticed a black sedan coming

in his direction. The car slowed down in front of a house and he saw that the driver lifted a handgun

and fired several shots at a man sitting in front of the house. Then the car took off. Sheharyar

identifies Waris as the killer. When Sheharyar was interrogated by the police right after the murder

a police officer noted that Sheharyar’s breath smelled of alcohol. Sheharyar admitted that he had

been drinking just before the shooting” (Dahlman, et al., 2016).

After reading the case participants were given one of the two versions of the defense

attorney. The versions are as follows:

Intoxication generalized argument: “I would like to draw your attention to one important

circumstance regarding Sheryar Abbas testimony. A person who is intoxicated with alcohol is less

reliable as a witness. Sheryar Abbas is therefore less reliable as a witness.”

Control argument: “I would like to draw your attention to one important circumstance about

Sheryar Abbas. A person who has consumed X glasses of alcohol is less reliable as a witness.

Sheryar Abbas is therefore less reliable as a witness” (Dahlman, et.al., 2015).

Scenario X = 1 glass of alcohol

13

Scenario X = 4 glasses of alcohol

The reason for selecting alcohol instead of wine as in the actually study is people don’t

consume wine at all in Pakistan. Secondly the amount of alcohol selected for this research is that

in Pakistan few people consume alcohol it is religiously prohibited so even one glass can affect

the person perception. Additionally, in Dalman, et al, they found out in their study that participant

agreed more with the term of being intoxicated when the witness had consumed one glass of wine.

In four glasses of wine scenario the results revealed that participant agreed less with the

intoxication argument, that a person is intoxicated so he is not a reliable witness.

In the study lawyers (N = 141 got one glass of alcohol case scenario; N = 143 got four

glasses of alcohol case scenario). Moreover, 143 lawyers read the generalized argument and 139

had the control argument of the experiment.

Demographic Form

A self-constructed demographic form will be used to gather personal information such as

name, age, gender, education, years of experience, family and self-consumption of alcohol. Family

and self-consumption was asked because then it can change the perspective of the person regarding

the consumption of alcohol. The name of the participants was taken considering the ethical

requirement so that if they wanted to remove themselves from the study their data is removed

easily.

Procedure

Three hundred forms were printed to collect the data for study one. The forms were

shuffled in order to avoid order effect. Order effect occurs where the study can be affected by the

order of the questions (Stephanie, 2016). Data was collected from High court of Lahore, where

most of the lawyers have their office within one building. They were told about the reason behind

the research and their consent was taken before giving them the research questionnaire with clear

instructions. After reading the given scenarios and the given version of the argument in the

questionnaire participants rated their opinion on a nine-point Likert scale from one (‘strongly

disagree’) to nine (‘strongly agree’).

Participant took 5 to 15 minutes maximum to fill in the form.

14

For the second study another 300 forms were printed. Permission was first taken from the

universities head to collect data from their employees as well as students. Then the participant was

asked for his or her consent before filling the form. Participants were informed about the

confidentially of their data and their right to leave the study whenever they want to, even before

the final analysis is done. The forms where individuals didn’t rate their opinion were not included

in the study.

Statistical Analysis

Factorial Analysis and T-test was employed to assess the data. Descriptive statistics such

as mean, standard deviation and percentages were analyzed.

15

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics

The participants of the study were of the age (M= 33.54, SD= 7.13). A total number of 243

male participants and 48 female participants took part in the study. Out of 282 participants only 6

participants stated that they consume alcohol and only 13 people stated that one of their family

members consumes it.

Descriptive Statisticsa

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Age 282 22.00 65.00 33.5426 7.13519

Male 234 1.00 2.00 1.1702 .37649

Female 48 1.00 2.00 1.9255 .26300

Self

consumption of

alcohol

282 1.00 2.00 1.8617 .34583

Family

consumption of

alcohol

282 1 2 1.8947 .26300

Valid N

(listwise) 282

a. Education type = lawyer

Factorial analysis

Hypothesis the participant will agree less to child generalization arguments as compared

to the control version of the study. That is child is less reliable witness as compared to the control

statement where the defense attorney uses the specific age (four years old or twelve years old) is

less reliable as a witness. Factorial Anova was conducted. Age was assessed in terms of prototype

generalization. Levene’s test of equal variances was F = 1.277, with df, 3(278) and p = 0.283 which

is greater than 0.5 so test between subject effects is analyzed for age groups. Results rejected the

hypothesis stating that there is no difference in the rating generalized and control version rating of

the participants. Second hypothesis that participants will find four years old children less reliable

16

as witnesses as compared to twelve years old children. That is, they will agree more with the

defense attorney statement that a four years old child is less reliable as a witness. Whereas for the

case scenario where the witness age is twelve years the participants will disagree with the defense

attorney statement that a twelve years old child is not a reliable witness. Participants had a

significant result in terms of case scenario where F= 5.971, with p < 0.5. with a small effect size.

For case arguments no significant results were seen. Since a significant result was seen for case

scenario an independent sample t-test was employed to check the difference. There was a

significant difference between lawyers rating scale for four years child witness testimony (M =

4.68, SD = 2.90) and 12 years child witness case scenario (M= 3.80, SD = 2.98), condition; t (280)

= -2.56, p = 0.011. The participants agreed more with defense attorney on the four years old case

scenario as compared to twelve-year old case scenario overall.

Tests of Between-Subjects Effectsa

Dependent Variable: case rating

Source Type III

Sum of

Squares

df Mean

Square

F Sig. Partial Eta

Squared

Corrected Model 64.711b 3 21.570 2.558 .055 .027

Intercept 4871.892 1 4871.892 577.645 .000 .675

CaseScenario 50.359 1 50.359 5.971 .015 .021

CaseArgument 9.045 1 9.045 1.072 .301 .004

CaseSce * CaseAr 1.157 1 1.157 .137 .711 .000

Error 2344.669 278 8.434

Total 7627.000 282

Corrected Total 2409.379 281

a. Education type = lawyer

b. R Squared = .027 (Adjusted R Squared = .016)

c. Case Scenario = (4 years old; 12 years old) Case Argument = (Generalized or controlled)

17

Experiment 2

The hypothesis that participants will find the use of the category intoxicated appropriate

if the quantity of alcohol consumed by the witness is high enough, and will find it inappropriate

to categorize the witness as intoxicated if the consumed quantity of alcohol, he or she thinks

doesn’t come under the term intoxication was analyzed using Factorial Anova. Data for this sample

was normally distributed and no significant outliers or missing values were found in the data. No

significant results were obtained from the analysis of data for this experimental design as p > 0.05

for case alcohol, case alcohol argument and intercept of case alcohol and its intercept. Therefore,

no further analysis was conducted for this experiment as it clearly depicts no effects of prototype

generalization.

Tests of Between-Subjects Effectsa

Dependent Variable: case rating

Source Type III

Sum of

Squares

df Mean

Square

F Sig. Partial Eta

Squared

Corrected Model 51.861b 3 17.287 2.374 .071 .025

Intercept 7736.114 1 7736.114 1062.205 .000 .793

CaseScenario 10.673 1 10.673 1.465 .227 .005

CaseArgument 15.001 1 15.001 2.060 .152 .007

CaseScen* CaseAr 25.700 1 25.700 3.529 .061 .013

Error 2024.693 278 7.283

Total 9802.000 282

Corrected Total 2076.553 281

a. Education type = lawyer

b. R Squared = .025 (Adjusted R Squared = .014)

c. Case Scenario = (one glass of alcohol; four glasses of alcohol) Case Argument = (Generalized

or controlled)

18

Study II

A total of 565 participants (Male = 372; Female = 193) were included in this study. The

mean age of the sample was 27.29 with standard deviation 8.19. Total percentage of individual

who consumed alcohol was 8 percent (M = 1.92; SD = .27) and family member consumption was

6 percent (M = 1.93; SD = .23) respectively.

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Age 565 18.00 65.00 27.2903 8.19254

Gender 565 1.00 2.00 1.3416 .47466

Family

consumption 565 1.00 2.00 1.9398 .23803

Self

consumption 565 1.00 2.00 1.9204 .27098

Education type 565 1.00 2.00 1.5009 .50044

Valid N

(listwise) 565

Mann-Whitney Testing

Hypothesis that there will be a significant difference between lawyers and other

professionals rating of the experiment where the term child is applied regardless of the age and

was well as in the control version where the defense attorney mentioned the age and stated the

witness is not reliable. Levene’s test of equal variances was F = 49.56, with p = 0.001, which is

less than 0.5 so Mann-Whitney test is used to analyze the data. The results revealed a significant

difference between lawyers and people from other profession on the rating scale for child witness

testimony Lawyers (M rank=260.03) people from other professions (M rank= 305.89), U =

33426.00, z = 73329.00, p < .001. Moreover, it indicates that people from other professions such

as media studies, engineering, psychology agreed more with the statements of defense attorney as

compared to lawyers.

Test Statisticsa

19

Hypothesis that lawyers and other professionals will vary in their rating of the

generalization of prototype in the alcohol version where the amount of consumed alcohol is

mentioned as well as intoxicated version of the argument where only the defense attorney claims

the person to be intoxicated. Levene’s test of equal variances was F = 13.07, with p = 0.001, which

is less than 0.5 so Mann-Whitney test is used to analyze the data. There was a significant difference

between lawyers and other professions on the rating of intoxicated witness testimony in lawyers

(M rank=258.80) people from other professions (M rank= 307.11), U = 33078.50, z = 72981.50,

p <.001. Moreover, it indicates that people from other professions such as media studies,

engineering, psychology agreed more with the statements of defense attorney as compared to

lawyers. Individual from other professions agreed more to the statements as compared to lawyers.

This states that education has an impact on the rating of the scale.

Test Statisticsa

case rating

Mann-Whitney

U 33078.500

Wilcoxon W 72981.500

Z -3.546

Asymp. Sig.

(2-tailed) .000

a. Grouping Variable: Education type

Discussion

The hypothesis that the participant will agree less to child generalization arguments as

compared to the control version of the study. That is child is less reliable witness as compared to

the control statement where the defense attorney uses the specific age (four years old or twelve

case rating

Mann-Whitney

U 33426.000

Wilcoxon W 73329.000

Z -3.363

Asymp. Sig.

(2-tailed) .001

a. Grouping Variable: Education type

20

years old) is less reliable as a witness was rejected as no difference between the rating of

generalized argument or control version was depicted in the results of the study. A difference in

the rating of four years old scale and twelve years old case scenario was seen so an individual t-

test was conducted for each age group in the study. It revealed a positive prototype effect as

individual agreed more with the generalized statement of four years old child case scenario. There

was no effect of prototype generalization seen in the twelve years old case scenario. The second

hypothesis that Participants will find four years old child less reliable as witnesses as compared to

twelve years old child. That is, they will agree more with the defense attorney statement that a four

years old child is less reliable as a witness. Whereas for the case scenario where the witness age is

twelve years the participants will disagree with the defense attorney statement that a twelve years

old child is not a reliable witness was accepted as most of the participants ratings on the Likert

scale was high that is towards strongly agreeing with the defense attorney’s statement that a four

years old child is not a reliable witness.

Ross et al (1990) stated that mock jurors have a stereotype for children witness and they

do not trust the ability of a child to be an accurate eyewitness. In line with the present study

Sumner-Armstrong, and Newcombe (2007) conducted a study to illustrate how witnesses are not

considered credible due to their age. Study results revealed that the jurors find a four years old

child less reliable as a witness and is not telling the truth and the same goes for adult witness stating

that the adult witness has the capability of lying during the testimony for a crime. On the contrary,

a study conducted by Melinder et al (2004) revealed that the psychiatrist and police officers tend

to find children more reliable as compared to the defense attorney and psychologists.

There are various reasons that are well-thought-out before the judge considers the testimony of a

child to be reliable or not. According to Bala, Ramakrishnan, Lindsay, and Lee (2005) the

credibility of the testimony depends on several factors such as honesty, memory, communication

ability, and suggestibility. How honest is the child providing the facts accurately in any given

scenario and has he provided all the information related to the case at hand is considered? The

latent factor depends on the memory of the child. How good his memory is? and how much

information he or she remembers. Moreover, can the child witness comprehend the question of the

lawyers and communicate his point of view clearly to the judge. Lastly, has the child been talking

to other people and his testimony has been influenced by their suggestions. These four aspects

21

depend on other things such as the evidence found at the crime scene supports the child testimony

or not, is he fluent while providing the facts and figures about the case or takes a lot of pauses

during the testimony. Is the child witness telling the same story again and again or is he contradicts

himself when asked again about the situation? All these factors are influenced by the type of a

personality a child adheres too, his level of intelligence as well as education, his personal

experiences related to the case and how honest he or she is in their daily life. Keeping in mind

these factors they conducted a study on judges of Canada to assess how they perceive the child

witness testimony. Results of the study stated that Canadian judges tend to believe that children

have limited memory as compared to adults. Due to these limitations they can make error while

testifying. Plus, their communication skills are weak, and they can be easily led with suggestive

questioning. So, a child is not a reliable witness.

On the contrary a student conducted by Lamb, Orbach, Hershkowitz, Esplin, and Horowitz

(2007) conducted a meta- analysis on studies assessing a child’s memory, his or her

communications skills, their social knowledge and social tendencies during initial testimony to

generate a valid structure interview to be used a guideline while taking the testimony from a child.

They stated that children testimony can be as reliable as an adult testimony provided how the

interview is conducted. According to their findings if the proper interview guides is used to get the

testimony of the child there will be no ambiguity in the testimony and no reasons to doubt the

testimony is valid or not.

Additionally, the reason behind the different results from the study of Dalman et al (2015)

might be that their study sample was taken online from an American population. According to

American Law a less than 5.5 years old child cannot be a witness in courtroom decisions (Pantell,

and Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, 2017). Thus, the law itself

is making a threshold of age being a prototype of a reliable witness and anyone under the age limit

of 5.5 is not considered as a witness. On the other hand, Pakistan has two different type of judiciary

setups one is the shariyat courts and other supreme courts. According to the both judiciary systems

in Pakistan there is no age limit for the person to testify. The criteria for a reliable witness are that

he or she, adult or a child can comprehend the questions which are asked from them and are able

to provide logical answers. The person is psychologically and medically evaluated before they are

permitted to be presented as a witness in the court (Hatt, et al., 2014). Similarly, as Bala,

22

Ramakrishnan, Lindsay, and Lee (2005) mentioned in their study the factors such as

communication skills, memory, intelligence, personality, comprehension are few of the things

considered while considering a child reliable witness or not.

The results are contradictory to Dalman et al, (2015) study results. The reason could be due

to different legal systems as there is no age limit in Pakistan for the witness and cultural aspect

could also be accounted for the results as well. Different culture perceive prototype differently.

For example, the prototype honor is perceived differently in different culture thus measure and

assessed differently (Cross et al., 2014).

According to the results of hypothesis that the participants will find the use of the category

intoxicated appropriate if the quantity of alcohol consumed by the witness is high enough, and

will find it inappropriate to categorize the witness as intoxicated if the consumed quantity of

alcohol, he or she thinks doesn’t come under the term intoxication pointed out no prototype effect

on the rating of generalized and control statement of the experiment. Both statement for both

scenarios were rated equally.

Researches conducted on alcohol also yield mix results for its effects on the memory and

information processing. For instance, Evans, Schreiber-Compo, and Russano, (2009) stated that

law enforcement needs to pay more attention to an individual who is intoxicated as they tend to

depict memory impairments. Moreover, Moreover, Hermens and Lagopoulos (2018) stated that

alcohol can impair the transfer capacity of short-term memory to long term memory thus it reduces

an individual’s capacity to process new information and facilitates forgetting. Furthermore, due to

alcohol consumption visual memory gets more impaired as compared to the working memory

(Vinader-Caerols, Duque, Montañés, and Monleón, 2017).

On the other hand Weafer, Gallo, and Wit, (2016) stated that alcohol consumption can

impair the memory during the encoding process but simultaneously alcohol elevates dopamine

(neurotransmitter) level in the brain which is known for its positive effects on the learning and

memory. According to them effects of alcohol can differ depending on the nature of the memory

or on the material to which the memory is related to while remember it by an intoxicated person.

To what extent an individual can be interpreted as intoxicated also varies from person to

person (Dalman, et. al., 2015). The term intoxication is interpreted differently in the Pakistani

23

context that could be the reason for these results. Hagsand, Roos-af-Hjelmsäter, Anders, Fahlke,

and Söderpalm-Gordh, (2013), stated in their experimental study that witness who have consumed

alcohol at a higher or lower level provide testimony like the person who has not consumed alcohol

at all. Compo (2012) stated that individuals’ level of intoxication does not affect the testimony.

The only effect of intoxication on the person is that he or she becomes suggestible to information.

Meaning if someone can lead the person with suggestible questioning making the witness think

that is what happened. On the contrary, Schreiber, et al. (2017) stated that most of the time

individual are intoxicated due to consumption of wine or alcohol during their testimony or at the

time of the criminal act or sometimes at both instances. So, they conducted an experiment. A mock

trial was conducted to assess the reliability of the testimony between sober people and people who

are intoxicated. Their study yielded the results that sober people have better memory and provide

better details for the crimes as compared to intoxicated person. Flowe (2017), stated that results

regarding witness being intoxicated or sober being a reliable witness are inconsistent, so further

studies are required to be sure of the phenomenon. Moreover, effect of alcohol consumption on

memory recall is also unclear so further studies are required to get a conciseness of the

phenomenon. Diversity and inconsistency in these studies support the present study which shows

no effect of intoxication prototype on the witness testimony by the participants as they agreed

equally with both the statements of the experiment.

The hypotheses that there will be a significant difference between lawyers and other

professionals rating of the experiment where the term child is applied regardless of the age and

was well as in the control version where the defense attorney mentioned the age and stated the

witness is not reliable was accepted. A significant difference in the rating of lawyers and other

professionals was seen in the results. The second hypothesis that the lawyers and other

professionals will vary in their rating of the generalization of prototype in the alcohol version

where the amount of consumed alcohol is mentioned as well as intoxicated version of the argument

where only the defense attorney claims the person to be intoxicated was accepted as significant

difference between the lawyers and people from other professions were seen.

Thus, the results state that lawyers’ educational bases further decreases the effect of

prototype generalization in given scenarios. That is lawyers disagree with the defense attorney

statement that a child is less reliable as a witness regardless of the age whereas people from other

professions agreed with the lawyer that a child is less reliable as a witness. Similarly, for

24

intoxication lawyers disagree with the defense attorney that an intoxicated person is less reliable

as a witness whereas people from other professions agreed with the defense attorney testimony of

them being not reliable This could be due to the reason that lawyers face similar situations every

day so their interpretation of the prototype changes due to their experience in the field. No studies

related to the decrease in the impact of the generalization due to education were found.

The process of the decision making is to isolate the provided option, then evaluate them on

terms of their worth, value, need, score etc. After this one option is selected. Decision are made at

various levels of hierarchy and complexity of that hierarchy. Similarly, categorization is done by

assessing the candidate’s number of categories and selection one out of all the other categories.

The difference between both the phenomenon is that categorization process generalizes the

phenomenon and gives it a certain category which becomes a prototype in order words

representation of the certain group (Seger, and Peterson, 2013).

Thus, understanding the learning process of categories is necessary as it will enhance the

decision-making process of the individual (Seger and Peterson, 2013). As mentioned above

Melinder et al (2004) revealed that general psychiatrists and police tend to find children more

reliable as compared to the defense attorney and psychologists. They are more susceptible about

their testimony. In line of the present finding Ball and O Callaghan (2001) conduct a study to see

the difference of opinions in professionals who had firsthand experience with the child witness

and students of different colleges, the study revealed scores of other professionals were higher than

the students thus stating that prior knowledge regarding the behavior of the child will enhance the

judgement and decision of the individuals.

Conclusion

According to Hane, et.al. (2018), there is a culture variability in terms of human values within

different countries. Interpretations of individuals also vary due to the values they adhere too.

No significant prototype generalization effects on the decision-making process of the lawyers and

other professionals were found in this study related to different age groups and alcohol

consumption amount. Whereas a difference in the rating scale of the child were prominent.

Individual agreed with the defense attorney statements of a child being less reliable as a witness

with the age group of four years old case scenarios regardless of the fact whether the argument of

the defense attorney was controlled or generalized. The results are contradictory to Dalman et al,

25

(2015) study results. The reason could be due to different legal systems as there is no age limit in

Pakistan for the witnesses if they can comprehend the questions and answering then with clarity

and facts. Further it highlighted the effect of education domain on the decision-making process.

Lawyers being educated in the field of the witness testimony gave different rating as compared to

professional related to other fields. They were more skeptical about the defense attorney

statements as compared to people from other professions. Present study highlighted that facts that

cultural aspects could also be accounted for the results, but further study is required to understand

which aspects of the culture could be held accountable for the present results. Moreover, this study

provided foundation to assess the effect of prototype generalization in the judgement and decision-

making process in Pakistan’s courts. Thus, to improve the legal system and understanding the

importance of decision-making process in any given scenario.

.

Limitations

Comprehending the type of Prototype generalization effect in present study revealed no

effects on generalizability. Due to time constraints only two case scenarios of intoxications were

used. More case scenarios can be used in terms of intoxication that is increase the amount of

alcohol consumption so assess if the term intoxication yields any generalizability or not.

Additionally, some culture aspects as such as the interpretation of the given variables were not

considered. Other limitations include difficulty of defining creativity, and consequently creating the

ideal measurement. Creativity as such is difficult to estimate based on self-reported, Likert-scale type

of questions. The current study has provided what is the most appropriate measure within the given

time restrictions and resources. Additionally, self-reported measurement of time spent doing anything

on a weekly basis is a limitation, due to its difficulty of estimation, whereas on the other hand

observation could prove more scientifically sound for future research to consider. A more diverse case

can be formulated with understanding of the Pakistani law to check the effect of prototype

generalization. Questionnaires could be translated in Urdu for better understanding of the

phenomenon. Since Urdu is the first language of the country. Analysis of the effects of prototype

in the Urdu translated version of the questionnaire might yield different results then the present

study.

26

Reference.

Bala, N., Ramakrishnan, K., Lindsay, R., & Lee, K. (2005). Judicial assessment of the credibility

of child witnesses. Alberta Law Review, 42(4), 995.

Bandura, A., & Jourden, F. J. (1991). Self-regulatory mechanisms governing the impact of social

comparison on complex decision making. Journal of personality and social

psychology, 60(6), 941.

Black, K. (2009). Business statistics: Contemporary decision making. John Wiley & Sons.

Byrnes, J. P. (2013). The nature and development of decision-making: A self-regulation model.

Psychology Press.

Ceschi, A., Demerouti, E., Sartori, R., & Weller, J. (2017). Decision-making processes in the

workplace: how exhaustion, lack of resources and job demands impair them and affect

performance. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 313.

Cognitive Approaches (n.d.), Retrieved on 30 April 2019, from http://www.ello.uos.de/field.php

/Cognitive Approaches/Prototype Theory.

Compo, N. S., Evans, J. R., Carol, R. N., Villalba, D., Ham, L. S., Garcia, T., & Rose, S. (2012).

Intoxicated eyewitnesses: Better than their reputation. Law and Human Behavior, 36(2),

77.

Cross, S. E., Uskul, A. K., Gerçek-Swing, B., Sunbay, Z., Alözkan, C., Günsoy, C., ... &

Karakitapoğlu-Aygün, Z. (2014). Cultural prototypes and dimensions of

honor. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(2), 232-249.

Dahlman, C., Sarwar, F., Bååth, R., Wahlberg, L., & Sikström, S. (2015). Prototype effect and

the persuasiveness of generalizations. Review of philosophy and psychology, 7(1), 163-

180.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-

resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied psychology, 86(3), 499.

Evans, J. R., Schreiber Compo, N., & Russano, M. B. (2009). Intoxicated witnesses and suspects:

Procedures and prevalence according to law enforcement. Psychology, Public Policy, and

27

Law, 15(3), 194.

Flournoy Jr, J. M., Prentice‐Dunn, S., & Klinger, M. R. (2002). The Role of Prototypical Situations

in the Perceptions of Prejudice of African Americans 1. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 32(2), 406-423.

Flowe, H. D., Colloff, M. F., Karoğlu, N., Zelek, K., Ryder, H., Humphries, J. E., & Takarangi,

M. K. (2017). The effects of alcohol intoxication on accuracy and the confidence–accuracy

relationship in photographic simultaneous line‐ups. Applied cognitive psychology, 31(4),

379-391.

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1994). Cross-cultural comparison of leadership prototypes. The

Leadership Quarterly, 5(2), 121-134.

Gibbons, F. X., Gerrard, M., Lando, H. A., & McGovern, P. G. (1991). Social comparison and

smoking cessation: The role of the “typical smoker”. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 27(3), 239-258.

Gordon, H. J., Demerouti, E., Bipp, T., & Le Blanc, P. M. (2015). The job demands and resources

decision making (JD-R-DM) model. European Journal of Work and Organizational

Psychology, 24(1), 44-58.

Hagsand, A., Roos-af-Hjelmsäter, E., Anders Granhag, P., Fahlke, C., & Söderpalm-Gordh, A.

(2013). Do sober eyewitnesses outperform alcohol intoxicated eyewitnesses in a

lineup?. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 5(1), 23-47.

Hanel, P. H., Maio, G. R., Soares, A. K. S., Vione, K. C., Coelho, G. L. D. H., Gouveia, V. V.,

Patil, A.C, Kamble, S.V & Manstead, A. S. (2018). Cross-cultural differences and

similarities in human value instantiation. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 849.

Harren, V.A. (1979). The influence of sex roles and cognitive styles on the career decision

making of college men and women. Institute of Educational Sciences, 160.

Hermens, D. F., & Lagopoulos, J. (2018). Binge drinking and the young brain: a mini review of

the neurobiological underpinnings of alcohol-induced blackout. Frontiers in

psychology, 9, 12.

Highhouse, S. (2008). Stubborn reliance on intuition and subjectivity in employee

28

selection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(3), 333-342.

Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Esplin, P. W., & Horowitz, D. (2007). A structured

forensic interview protocol improves the quality and informativeness of investigative

interviews with children: A review of research using the NICHD Investigative Interview

Protocol. Child abuse & neglect, 31(11-12), 1201-1231.

Lavrakas, P. J. (2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Sage Publications.

Melodie J. Fox. 2011. Prototype theory: An alternative concept theory for categorizing sex and

gender? In Smiraglia, Richard P.,ed. Proceedings from North American Symposium on

Knowledge Organization, Vol. 3. Toronto, Canada, pp. 151-159.

Melinder, A., Goodman, G. S., Eilertsen, D. E., & Magnussen, S. (2004). Beliefs about child

witnesses: A survey of professionals. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10(4), 347-365.

Pantell, R. H., & Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. (2017). The

child witness in the courtroom. Pediatrics, 139(3), e20164008.

Popper, M., & Druyan, N. (2001). Cultural prototypes? Or leaders’ behaviors? A study on workers’

perceptions of leadership in an electronics industry. Journal of Managerial

Psychology, 16(7), 549-558.

Revlin, R. (2013). Cognition: Theory and Practice (Vol. 2349).

Rondeau, J.L., Goodman, G. S., Goldfarb, D., Cooper, P., Puk, A., Ballestrem, J. S., Speckin, V.,

Hatt, C., Klentak, P., Khoso, A., Ali, I, Trendafilova, A.D., Wi-Kaitaia, M., Kenning, J.,

Clader, A., Weijers, I., & Rap, S. (2014). CHRONICLE CHRONIQUE CRÓNICA.

International association of youth and family judges and magistrates.

Ross, D., D. Dunning,M. Toglia, and S. Ceci. (1990). The child in the eyes of the jury—Assessing

mock juror’s perceptions of the child witness. Law and Human Behavior 14: 5–23.

Schreiber Compo, N., Carol, R. N., Evans, J. R., Pimentel, P., Holness, H., Nichols-Lopez, K., ...

& Furton, K. G. (2017). Witness memory and alcohol: The effects of state-dependent

recall. Law and human behavior, 41(2), 202.

29

Seger, C. A., & Peterson, E. J. (2013). Categorization= decision making+

generalization. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(7), 1187-1200.

Sumner-Armstrong, C., & Newcombe, P. A. (2007). The education of jury members: Influences

on the determinations of child witnesses. Psychology, crime & law, 13(3), 229-244.

Sugrue, L. P., Corrado, G. S., & Newsome, W. T. (2005). Choosing the greater of two goods:

neural currencies for valuation and decision making. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(5),

363.

Vinader-Caerols, C., Duque, A., Montañés, A., & Monleón, S. (2017). Blood alcohol

concentration-related lower performance in immediate visual memory and working

memory in adolescent binge drinkers. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1720.

Weafer, J., Gallo, D. A., & de Wit, H. (2016). Effect of Alcohol on Encoding and Consolidation

of Memory for Alcohol‐Related Images. Alcoholism: clinical and experimental

research, 40(7), 1540-1547.